The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability has exposed a disturbing reality: a child protection system deeply entrenched in systemic discrimination, ableism, and a lingering eugenic legacy. This article - Broken Child Protection System, the third in a series critiquing the Royal Commission's findings, focuses on the experiences of parents with disabilities, advocating for immediate and comprehensive reform. The following summary of issues are identified in the voluminous published material of the Royal Commission and are based on evidence put before it:
Parents with disability are disproportionately targeted by child protection services. Mothers with psychosocial disability constitute the largest cohort of parents with disability engaged by the child protection system. This is a reflection of deep-seated societal and systemic biases.
Despite legislative provisions prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of a parent with disability, it still pervades risk assessment and child protection practice. Parents who actively seek support or help from services find their actions construed as signalling their inability to care for their children.
The conflation of disability with “potential risk” is a practice steeped in historical prejudice. It manifests in a lower threshold for intervention by child protection authorities and a failure to provide necessary support. This systemic failure to distinguish between disability and parenting ability has led to numerous breaches of human rights, disproportionately affecting parents with disabilities. This widespread conflation has let to extraordinary levels of scrutiny of parents with disability, including prior to their children’s birth.
The assessment process in child protection cases is flawed. Assessments often lack cultural and disability appropriateness are conducted without the necessary tools, skills, or knowledge. This leads to a misrepresentation of the capabilities of parents with disabilities, further entrenching prejudice and misunderstanding. The handling of case notes is of particular concern. These records, ostensibly objective, often become instruments of bias, misrepresenting the capabilities and circumstances of parents with disabilities. The lack of transparency and accessibility in these notes further disempowers parents, leaving them unable to contest inaccuracies or provide necessary context.
Parents with disability often face legal proceedings without adequate representation, leading to a lack of understanding and an inability to contest child protection decisions effectively. In many cases, parents with disability are not made aware of the child protection concerns about them until court proceedings commence. The adversarial nature of these proceedings further disadvantages parents, as they come up against a well-resourced and emotionally detached department with a vested interest in having its decisions vindicated. The power imbalance is enormous. It is particularly difficult for parents whose children are removed within days of their birth. Evidence put before the Royal Commission included a widespread practice of acquiescence to child protection concerns and the removal of children due to cost and the lack of time parents had to produce counter evidence, such as assessments by independent experts. Importantly, this practice must not be confused with parental agreement that the department’s child protection concerns are substantiated.
Expert evidence in child protection proceedings is frequently based on limited and biased information where reports are tendered based on information provided to the experts by the department. Frequently the expert will have not met the parents in person and any telephone or video conferencing is time limited and either misinterprets or does not factor in the nuances particular to parents with disability. Many believe their discussions will be confidential, even therapeutic, only to find that what they have said is used in the expert report to substantiate child protection concerns in court. Parents with disability are at a disadvantage in contesting these assessments, which are accepted without sufficient scrutiny.
The overwhelming evidence is that once involved, parents with disability are significantly more likely to have their children removed from their care. They experience differential treatment with respect to where, how long and with whom their children are placed following their removal.
The trauma inflicted by the child protection system extends beyond parents to their children. Removal from family frequently results in significant social, emotional, and developmental challenges for children. For parents, the experience is marked by betrayal, helplessness, and a struggle to navigate a complex and often adversarial system. The consequences of this systemic failure are profound, affecting the immediate family and the wider community.
Many parents who were involved in child protection systems were themselves placed in the care of the State which challenges the notion that children will be better off once removed from their family. It is a perverse position applied in child protection which treats a parent’s childhood history of child protection as a relevant determination of risk.
Considerable evidence over decades has shown a nexus between child removal and subsequent involvement in the criminal justice system. It is called care criminalisation. Children are rarely better off in care than if they remained with their family and supports provided to them. Children experience trauma following removal from their families and are frequently shuttled between multiple placements with carers.
The system's failures are systemic, rooted in ableist, class-based, and racist assumptions. The result is a disproportionate focus on investigation over support and a tendency to view disability as a risk factor rather than a characteristic requiring tailored support. Reference to a parent’s disability is frequently noted in policy, practice guidelines and child protection publications as posing a potential risk to child well-being. It is a practice known as institutional ableism.
The Royal Commission calls for the child protection system to be overhauled entirely. This includes changes to laws, policies, and practices to ensure the system is fair, just, and supportive of families. Government must heed the Commission's call for urgent and widespread reform by adopting and implementing all of the recommendations.
If you think that these issues are isolated cases happening in other regions, you would be mistaken. They are entrenched in policy and practice in our community. We invite readers to confidentially share their experiences of the child protection system at admin@widebayadvocacy.org.au contributing to our understanding and advocacy for a just, equitable child protection system.